Mr.Scott

We'll give you what you want......if you pay us. It doesn't get any plainer than that man.

My team mates have nothing to do with my post at all. Don't read into what isn't there. I understand that it costs money to keep a site like this running, and I can appreciate what you're trying to do to get that. But let's call a spade a spade here. Instead of saying you're doing what you're doing to control the amount of cheats and sharing on the site, why don't you just come clean and say that the small time OC'ers don't fit your long term corporate sponsored goals anymore, instead of just quietly instituting change after change to alienate them, and stringing them along. BTW, by reading the above posts, I would say that it's not just myself and my team mates that are in disagreement with the proposed revision. I see quite a few big teams and heavy hitters responding quite similiarly.

I see. The future end result here is to be a corporate sponsored "puppet" overclocking competition site, plainly stated in #3 of your post above. The little guys stand no chance here and never will, if that's truly your goal. Way to go. You sold out.

That will be rev. 5.

There is nothing left to say after this. It's perfect.

As do a lot of us.

I very much agree.

It's not fair to gun down the staff. They're only responding to what people complain about most, although I think the method they choose is a little radical most of the time. You can't please everyone all of the time, that's a given, but there has to be a better way.

This is about the most bullshit statement I think I've ever seen. Now we can accuse anyone that complains about the change of sharing HW. You're a peach dude.

I have to agree with you on this. I feel dirty now, but you're correct.

Nice rip Paco.

Not if there are no other benchers of said cards. Thank you for the confirmation.

No need to get snarky dude. It's just without a link, it makes you less believeable. Can somebody from the staff please confirm that you can enter a valid submission without actually running the entire benchmark please? This could open a lot of doors. tia

Link please.

Exactly. Thanks for the simplified version.

Correct. Because it takes just as much time and skill to overclock decently.....maybe more than todays hardware. I see.....this would be about attracting more sponsorships. I should have known it would come back to that. FWIW, we bench in popular categories also. It's just not our primary interest.

You mis-read nothing. It was aggressive. Mostly because the guys who bench older hardware are sick and tired of taking it in the ass points wise because the guys who bench new hardware are un-happy with their points. Why must we cater to new hardware all the time? Can't we just leave the system alone?

Thanks for the idea of putting another dagger in my team dude. We freakin' appreciate that.

I understand the breakdown, and which benchmarks are affected.

My god man, it'll take me all night. So be it. Prepare yourselves. Thor is gonna hate me.

What's the real deal with the 2X core and 4X core scoring on unlockable CPU's? Just for example, the Phenom II X2 550 BE class is just littered with 4 core entrys labled as 2X. I almost don't even want to submit in there because I already know I'm getting screwed before I even submit. All of the unlockable processor classes are like this. Why?

http://hwbot.org/searchResults.do?direction=&applicationId=9&cpu=Athlon+X2+5000&numberOfProcessors=0&gpu=&numberOfVideocards=0&manufacturer=&chipset=&model=&memManufacturer=&memType=&memProduct=&minCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&minGpuCoreFreq=&maxGpuCoreFreq=&minGpuMemFreq=&maxGpuMemFreq=&minMemFreq=&maxMemFreq=&countryId=0&teamId=0&userName=&minScore=&maxScore=&displayAdvanced=false&filterBlocked=&filterUser=&filterVerification=&imageAttached=&dateFrom=&dateUntil=&system=&minTotalPoints=&gpuId=0&cpuId=2034&chipsetId=0&modelId=0&manufacturerId=0&memManufacturerId=&memProductId=&memTypeId=&offset=0 This is a little skewed too. Can we fix this? tia

Thanks for the info brother. That's all I was looking for. I wasn't bashing the staff either. Just looking for closing information.

Why was the other thread deleted after proof was shown that Hiwa loaned a processor out for benching, and then benched it himself? The people have a right to know. It makes the staff here look suspicious. BTW, I personally have no problems with the staff here, I'm just telling you how it looks.

How come there's so much missing information in the CPU-Z tabs? I have TUSL and CUSL boards, and all my info is in the tabs. Specifically, the motherboard and bios info.